


Character Bashing: Why I can't take it seriously

by Joan_of_Arc



Category: A Song of Ice and Fire & Related Fandoms, A Song of Ice and Fire - George R. R. Martin, Game of Thrones (TV)
Genre: No Plot, No character bashing, just an opinion essay, no hero-worshipping
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2019-08-30
Updated: 2019-08-30
Packaged: 2020-09-30 16:31:00
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 5
Words: 10,495
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/20450153
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Joan_of_Arc/pseuds/Joan_of_Arc
Summary: This is not a story. This is just me trying to make sense of the ridiculous character bashing and childish hero-worshipping that goes on in this fandom: selective criticism, biased praise, double standards ...





	1. Character Bashing: Why I can't take it seriously

** _ Character bashing: Why I can’t take it seriously _ **

Do you like sports? As you can see from my avatar (or not) I am a big fan of football, and there’s a team I passionately support. But I’m not blind. I can tell when they play horribly and when other teams play better. I complain when the referees err against us, but I can also see when a mistake benefits us… Unfortunately many people cannot. Some fans will cry rivers when there’s a refereeing mistake against their team and throw around accusations of all kinds, but brush it off as unimportant when their team benefits from it. Some fans will bash and vilify a rival player for faking a foul and duping the referee, but will cheer when a player from their team does it. The same applies to politics. How many times has a politician said or done something controversial and is heavily criticized for it by his or her rivals, but when another candidate does something similar they are immediately excused or defended by their supporters (the very same people who, incidentally, had badmouthed the first candidate)? Fans, of any type - be it in sports, in politics or in something as innocuous as a book- will judge similar actions differently based solely on who did them or who is affected. And any attempt at a decent debate is ruined by this hypocrisy and double standards.

Well, that’s exactly what happens in this fandom. The book is the same for all of us. But people just see different things. Sometimes I don’t even understand what it is they see or where they get it from – sometimes people see things that are not even in the books. One thing is to interpret an action in different ways: Did Sansa tell Tyrion about Jon for the good of the kingdom or to harm Daenerys? I suppose you can interpret her actions either way. But another thing is when a character is systematically bashed for doing the exact same things other characters are cheered for. Two characters can behave in a very similar fashion but be judged in completely different ways by the fans, and it is this inconsistency that really gets to me …

We are fortunate enough to have been given a book where, for the most part, we have very real human characters. People who try their best to navigate the situations they find themselves in. People like you or I, who are not flawless saintly martyrs nor despicable villains just for the heck of it. People who are relatively smart when they need to be but without being right all the time (real people rarely are). And there are no stupid characters, just characters who act as nobly and pragmatically as they can, but sometimes fate has other ideas and their plans backfire – again, not because they lack sense, but because other factors come into play.

Yet, for some reason I am still to understand, some people can only see in black and white and cannot appreciate the best aspect of the saga: how real and true-to-life the characters are. The extreme hero-worshipping and character bashing that goes on in this fandom is as atrocious as it is childish, and most of the time unfounded.

I had never delved so deep into a fandom before. Yes, I come from shows like the X Files, Startgate SG-1, Buffy, where you do have your heroes and your bad guys. But I had never seen the blatant favouritism or blind hatred I see here. Krycek may have acted against Mulder and Scully, but he was a human being deep down and there were clear reasons for his actions, and the fandom was never as cruel to him as some comments I see in this fandom. Spike may have acted against Buffy, but he also had his good points and the fans understood this. Similarly, when Mulder died and came back, he acted in ways that left a lot to be desired (not because of “bad writing” but because the character had undergone some changes), and the fans saw this and criticized him accordingly. There was no cheap hero-worshipping or easy forgiveness of his mistakes. When Sam Carter had the best intentions, but made a mistake in her calculations and provided the “enemy” alien race with a weapon, people understood it was an honest mistake that just happened to have bad consequences. And so on … Yet, for some reason, many fans here can’t see beyond their own biased preferences giving undeserved praise or unfair criticism to the different characters. The exact same action will be cheered or criticized depending on who does it or who is affected by it, not the action itself. Characters are judged differently with some standards applying to some, but a completely different set of values applying to others.

In this essay I will try to look into how the characters are judged differently and the various aspects that shape people’s views on them. My intention is not to bash any character nor their actions, only to point out the way in which they are judged by the fans.

I admit that I have taken some ideas from other authors’ notes in their own stories or other people’s reviews in the comments section. It is quite reassuring to know that I am not alone in my rejection of this blatant bias and hypocrisy. 


	2. Misogyny and Selective Modern Values.

** _ Misogyny and Selective Modern Values.  _ **

One of the first things we have to do when we start a book or TV show like Game of Thrones is leave our world behind and immerse ourselves in this universe. Just as we accept the existence of dragons, direwolves and whitewalkers, we need to accept that their moral values were different from ours. We need to understand that this is a world where the older male child is the heir and all the girls and boys that come after are dispensable. This is a world where children are just tokens to be bartered away in arranged marriages, where children are taken hostages to keep their parents in check, where bastards do not have the same rights as trueborn children, where criminals are sent to a penal colony for life and their record is wiped clean, where a King descends from a father who was also king and his decisions cannot be challenged. If we can’t take these facts as read, then we’ll never truly appreciate the story.

Yet, some people insist on judging these characters by our modern standards. This wouldn’t be altogether a bad thing if ALL the characters were measured by the same standards. The problem is when we apply some modern values to some but not to others. It’s the double-standard reigning in this fandom that is really bothersome.

**_Arranged marriages_** were as common in that society as buying bread. All highborn children (boys and girls) knew that their future was to have an arranged marriage to secure alliances or to get benefits for their family. And they all did without even questioning it.

The older generation did it: Cersei and Robert, Ned and Cat, Jon Arryn and Lysa, etc. None of these people really had a say as to who they married. For some reason, many people in the fandom moan about Ned being forced to marry Catelyn, but forget that she was just as forced. People claim that poor Ned loved Ashara (even thought there is no real proof of it just a vague reference to a Ashara spending time with “a Stark”) but forget that Catelyn did actually love another. Robert never wanted Cersei, and neither did Cersei who had hoped to marry Rhaegar. Yet, nobody pities them. And the same with all the others. They all had to marry whoever they were told, and they all did it. They never even questioned it – they had no reason to.

The younger generation is no different. Robb should have married a Frey girl – but he didn’t and it brought dire consequences for his family. People don’t have any issues with Robb being forced to marry a girl he didn’t love, but raise hell about Arya having to marry. Why? What’s the difference? Robb was betrothed so they could find a better way to free Ned and the girls (Arya included). So why should Arya be given the benefit to choose not to marry? There are countless stories in which Arya finds out about her betrothal and fights against it tooth and nail. Absolutely not! For her it would have been the expected future. She knew she would marry eventually. And if this betrothal bought her a chance to free her father, she would have done it no questions asked and would have knitted the cloak herself if it meant assuring her father’s freedom sooner.

As much as people cry for poor Arya being betrothed as part of a political deal, nobody says anything about Myrcella, who was similarly betrothed by her uncle for his own political agenda (a cause not nearly as noble as was the case with Arya). In the show Myrcella ended up dying for it and in the book she was severely disfigured. Yet, as much as people bash Catelyn for her deal, nobody holds Tyrion to the same scrutiny.

So the question remains: are arranged marriages something to be accepted in this world? Apparently the answer has little to do with the marriages themselves, and a lot to do with who is being betrothed or who arranges it.

Marrying for love as we know it had no place in that society for highborn children. The very few times it happened, the consequences were disastrous: Lyanna and Rhaeggar, Robb and Talisa/Jeyne, Cersei and Jaime (not married though), Jon and Daenerys (if we count the show).

Lyanna is sometimes criticized for running away with Rhaegar, but very often praised because she rebelled and refused to submit herself to social expectations, and is therefore seen as a strong female figure which embodies our modern values of female empowerment. It’s ironic that she rejected Robert because he would cheat on her but she ended up eloping with a married man who was cheating on is wife with her. How can she be praised for refusing a man who would humiliate her but at the same time help a man humiliate his wife?

Hoster Tully is not ambitious and power hungry looking only for good marriages for his daughters. He wanted his family to do well, just like all the other parents we see in the books and so he arranged betrothals accordingly (Ned’s father, Ned and Catelyn, Cersei, Olenna Tyrell, etc they all did). He is not a bad father for marrying his younger daughter to an older man. Lysa was “damaged goods” and Jon Arryn was the best she could have hoped for. It’s not like today where a woman (or a man) can decide not to marry and devote themselves to their careers. Their job was indeed to get married. Having been “soiled” was a obstacle in the case of Lysa. Having a baby out of wedlock made it even worse. As terrible as it sounds to our 21st century ears, what Hoster did to Lysa was not because he was a bad father but because he thought that was the best for her. It’s like modern parents forcing their children to finish their studies even though the kids may hate it and suffer through high school. 

**_Bastards_** were something to frown upon in that society. But we must remember that in such a patriarchal society it was not the man who had the bastard that was looked down on, but the “ill-begotten” child and the betrayed woman who were scorned. It was not Baelish whose reputation suffered, but Lysa’s. Ned was never looked down on for having a bastard, Jon and Catelyn were (Ned is still considered “the most honourable man in Wesetros”). Robert was never looked down on for having a bastard in every kingdom, Cersei was the one who was insulted. And so on. But just as the men were not looked down on for straying, the product of such stray was to remain out of sight. It was not the norm to bring a bastard home. What Ned did was unheard of. Even Catelyn admits so herself in her PoV in the books: her issue was not that Ned slept with another woman (as many people mistakenly believe) but that he brought the product of such union home. Not only was it humiliating, but above all, it was dangerous. She would have been ok with Ned having a dozen bastards, so long as they were not forced upon her and posed no threat to her and her children. 

Nobody is disputing that feeling sorry for children who are treated differently just because of how they were born is a very noble sentiment. The problem is that we are focusing on the wrong bastard. Jon was never mistreated. As opposed to other bastards who truly lived like bastards, were looked down on and had to work for their food, Jon was an integral part of the Stark family, living under the same roof and partaking in all the same activities. Just compare Gendry’s life to Jon’s. It’s funny people cry for the one bastard who was actually treated like a lord, but make no mention of children like Mia Stone, Edric Storm, Gendry Waters, Ramsay Snow, etc. And it’s even funnier when these same people then call for Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen to be denounced as bastards and thrown out into the streets. Very selective application of modern values, if you ask me.

Taking **_wards and hostages_** to forge alliances and keep parents in check was common practice. It sounds horrendous to our ears, but we must take it as read that this was one way to ensure people did not rebel in that society. I have never seen anyone cry for poor Theon, who was taken away from his home and family just to make sure his father was kept in check. Maybe that’s why he ended up doing what he did. It’s funny people feel more sorry for Jon who was given a family that loved him than for little Theon who was taken away from his and was shipped to a strange land with strange customs. Again, modern values only apply to certain people.

**_Misogyny_** is another divisive issue for the fans. Is this a misogynist society? Certainly. Women were not valued as much as men. Yet, what I find even more misogynist is the reaction of many fans.

Who are the “cool” female characters in the story? Reading fanfiction and going through the comments, there is no doubt about that: Arya and Brienne stand out with Ygritte following not far behind. What do these girls have in common? They all behave like boys. Their tomboyish behaviour makes them cool. Apparently behaving like a girl is a big deterrent for a fandom that claims to be against the rampant misogyny of the society the story is set in. Very odd, isn’t it?

It is the fans who think that a woman can only be strong if she can fight. So we celebrate Arya’s fighting skills, Brienne’s prowess, Ygritte’s feistiness and skill with the bow, Olenna’s shrew manipulative techniques – incidentally, all qualities regularly associated with men. Other women who use other weapons are bashed. Cersei and Margaery used their sensuality, and in the case of Cersei, she also used her power. Sansa appealed to honour and kindness. Catelyn used her political knowledge and sense of duty and honour. Some of these women succeeded, others failed – due to a variety of factors. But the fact remains that women who use “manly ways” are celebrated, while the others are not.

People call GRRM misogynist because of his work. He never said anything about approving this sort of attitude, he was just describing a society in which men and women had very clearly defined and very different roles. Yet, it is the modern fans who put female characters down just because they like being girls

Sansa is said to be an airhead who believed in silly fantasies. She believed in gallant knights who would fight for a defenceless princess. Arya dreamed she could become one of these knights. The fantasy was the same: one dreamed of marrying a knight, the other dreamed of being one. And in that society marrying a knight was a much more feasible fantasy for a girl than being one. Sansa liked all kinds of “girlie” things like singing and doing embroidery while Arya preferred more boyish hobbies liked swordplaying and fighting. For that society, Sansa’s interests were more useful than Arya’s for a girl. Why is it that Sansa is belittled for her hobbies while Arya is celebrated? For this fandom, Sansa is silly for liking girlie things while Arya is cool for wanting to be a boy. As a woman myself (who, by the way is quite tomboyish) I find this extremely insulting. I can’t believe I need to explain this to modern people, but wanting to be a girl is not wrong.

At least Sansa accepted her responsibilities together with her fantasies. Arya only wanted the perks but none of the responsibilities being highborn implied. Sansa understood responsibility and duty better than most. The incident at the trident shows this. Sansa knew she had to ride the wheelhouse (whether she wanted to or not) because it was her duty to spend time with the Queen and the princess. Arya did not. Arya decided to do as she pleased disregarding everything she was told. And it brought terrible consequences. It put Sansa in a situation where she had to either lie to protect her sister or tell the truth and put her whole family at risk. She chose what she thought would be the best answer which would absolve her sister without pitting her family against the royal family. Mind you, I’m not saying Arya behaved terribly here. No! She was just being a young child who wanted to play. The fault is all Joffrey’s, no doubt about that. But it was Arya who behaved irresponsibly and Sansa who tried to be the dutiful girl. And who ended up paying the price? I would be ok if people complained about Sansa not telling the truth while also acknowledging that it was Arya who started it by not riding the wheelhouse as she was supposed to. But when the blame is all Sansa’s and Arya’s behaviour is excused because what she did was “cool”, that really bothers me. What most people fail to see is that they were just little girls and they behaved as such; there’s nothing to be criticized about what they did.

Most fans rage about Daenery’s rape by Drogo. I will not debate whether marital rape can be considered rape. In that society it wasn’t, but it definitely is in ours – especially to such a young girl! What happened to a young Daenerys who was married off to a much older (and bigger) man with foreign customs was terrible, and thus all the cries of sympathy we have for her in the fandom. Yet, when something similar happened to Sansa in the show, not everybody reacted the same way. I was appalled to read many comments saying how she deserved it and that it served her right. Again, the same action against a girl generated different reactions. We all felt sorry for Daenerys, but not everybody felt the same way for Sansa. And we can’t forget that with the issue of arranged marriages, very few young boys and girls came to the marriage bed completely willing. So, should we condone rape or not? By Westerosi standards, can it be considered rape if they are married? Or does it depend on the victim?

In such a misogynist society, most women had to go live in their husbands’ house when they married and adapt to the new customs while the men were the head of the house. For most women this was not such a big issue since the north married mostly in the north and the south in the south. This was not the case with Catelyn, however, who had to leave her customs and religion behind. I have seen many people complain that Catelyn got a Sept in Winterfell and was allowed to pray to her Gods. People claim that she should have given up her Tully upbringing and become a Stark. And yet, these same people want for Arya to remain Northerner and keep her “wolf blood” regardless who (or if) she marries and where she lives. I have read stories in which Lyanna is alive and is the dominant figure in her relationship with Rhaegar (meaning that she did not become a subdued wife but held on to her customs) and her complaints that Catelyn has a Sept in Winterfell are encouraged by the reviewers. Why should some women get to keep their traditions but not others? So again, it’s not a question of a wife having to abandon her beliefs and adopt her husband’s. It’s a question of who. The fact that men get to keep their customs and that it is the woman who must adapt is not even questioned by most fans. Do modern values of gender equality apply? The fact remains that most fans accept that in that society the woman should be a subdued wife - unless, of course, it’s a female character they happen to like. 

Many woman were victims of what nowadays we would consider domestic abuse. Cersei was constantly put down and publicly humiliated by her husband. When Cersei was slapped by her husband, she said that she would wear the bruise like a badge of honour. Robert told her "Wear it in silence or I will honour you again" and fans cheered. Cersei had to fight against rampant misogyny her whole life: first against her father, then her husband. This led to her becoming the hardened woman we meet in the books, who doesn’t care who gets hurt so long as she gets what (she believes) she deserves. Would she had been a different person if her father hadn’t put her down for being a girl or if Robert hadn’t mistreated her?

Another woman who was abused by our standards was Catelyn. Her husband was unfaithful to her and forced her to accept the biggest shame and humiliation and the biggest threat to her life without so much as giving her an explanation. She never complained and always did her duty. The one time she asked who the woman in question was Ned yelled at her and threatened her. She mentions she had never been so afraid of him as she was that night. Yet, this “abuse” is completely ignored by the fandom who actually blames the victim and bashes her to no end saying she should just accept her place.

According to most fans, then, women in Westeros should just submit to their husbands. That’s what they expect of women like Catelyn and Cersei, who are harshly criticized if they happen to question their husbands or try to have a little dignity. However, at the same time we celebrate women like Olenna Tyrell who refused to be put down by the role society had reserved for women. In fanfiction, fans cheer when Arya rebels against men and her duties as a wife. This inconsistency is very confusing. Should women be dutiful and subdued? Or only some women? Women are judged differently and their actions criticized or celebrated with very little regard to fairness, only taking personal preferences into account.

Misogyny is not always so polarizing. Hereditary laws were very clear. Even Robb said so when talking about Renly: “Bran can’t inherit before me” because he was younger. His sisters Sansa and Arya were not even part of the discussion since they were mere girls. We, the fans, accepted this and there is no outrage about the girls being left aside. In fact, the same thing happened in season 7 when the issue came down to Sansa or Jon. Very few people took into account bloodlines (Sansa being trueborn and Jon being a bastard) or merits (whether their actions merited them becoming king or queen). For the Northern Lords all that mattered was that Jon was a man while Sansa was not. And again, most fans did not even question this. In this specific circumstance, Westerosi medieval misogyny became an accepted fact.

So, should girls be granted the same rights as boys? Or are only girls who “behave like men” to be taken seriously? Should we feel for characters who suffer according to our modern values of equality and justice? Or do we save sympathy only for the characters we like? It begs the questions whether it is GRRM and the Westerosi society who discriminated against less favoured groups, or the fans who celebrate it when it suits their preferences and denounce it when it doesn’t. I wonder where (and why) the fans draw the line as to when modern values should apply or not. As usual, it all depends on who is being affected, not the situation itself.


	3. Mistakes vs misfortune

** _ Mistakes vs misfortune _ **

Throughout the saga, most of the characters are put in situations they had never envisioned they would be involved in. They all try their best to overcome their obstacles making difficult decisions and taking risks. Most of the decisions the characters take do make sense given what they know and the circumstances they were in. However, most of them are judged in hindsight, taking into account the end result and not the action itself.

Let’s say you wake up in the morning and see a bright sun shining in the sky. You turn on the news and the weather forecast predicts a beautiful day with no chance of rain. Would you take an umbrella with you? Of course not, that would be ridiculous! Not only would you be carrying an extra burden, but you also run the risk of misplacing it or hurting someone with it. Now, let’s say that for some reason beyond your control the weather changes and it starts pouring. Is it your fault if you get soaked? Can you be considered an idiot for not taking an umbrella when everything around you indicated it was not going to rain? Apparently, in this fandom, the answer is yes – well, depending on the character, of course.

Sansa is bashed for telling the Queen that her father wanted to leave the city. Being the proper girl that she was, what she did was fine. Cersei had been more of a parent to her than her own father in King’s Landing. While doting on Arya and allowing her every fantasy (even getting her a dancing master), Ned completely ignored Sansa. He gave her a doll when Sansa had not played with dolls in years. On the other hand, Cersei understood her better than her own father did. So Sansa did what we always tell our kids to in: in case of trouble to confide in an adult they trust (be it a family member, a teacher or an authority of some kind). She truly thought telling the truth would save her family. It didn’t. But not because what she did was stupid. It almost worked, but Joffrey’s cruelty was a factor not even his own mother could predict. And yet Sansa gets bashed for it.

Ned also gets heavily criticized for the same thing. He warned Cersei to leave the city before the King returned. He was afraid of Robert’s wrath, something he had already seen first hand, and how it would endanger the children. Is this wrong? Of course not. His experience with women was very limited and included mostly his wife. He knew Catelyn would do anything for her children and assumed Cersei would do the same. He had already seen Cersei being very protective of her children, so it was not wrong to assume she would put their safety first, something she in fact did, only that not by running away as Ned expected but by turning the tables on him. How could Ned have predicted Cersei would have the King killed?

Catelyn gets harshly criticized for trusting a dear friend and her sister. If you don’t trust your friends and family, who can you trust? Besides, this is a friend who had shown his love for her many times. He had even challenged a bigger and stronger man to a duel for her. And when she arrived in King’s Landing he went out of his way to help her and guarantee her safety. Of course she would believe him, it would be stupid not to. After their meeting with Baelish, there could no doubt that Tyrion was involved in Bran’s accident. And what did she do with this information? Absolutely nothing! She went home to do what Ned had asked, and tried to keep a low profile and out of sight. It was Tyrion that found her at the Inn and put her on the spot. His words may sound harmless to us, the readers who know he is innocent. But to a person who already suspects his guilt, the way he behaves, his own words and his condescending and mocking way of speaking only add to his guilt. She had no choice but to arrest him. How could she let such a heinous criminal walk away and continue with his murderous tendencies? She did what any of us would do: take a suspected criminal to justice. And to her credit, she afforded him a trial and respected the rules of justice and the verdict – something not all the characters would do.

It’s funny these people get criticized for trusting people they had no reason to mistrust, and yet others who put their lives in the hands of people they shouldn’t are celebrated. Tyrion needed a champion and Bronn volunteered, but not out of the kindness of his heart but because Tyrion would pay him. He was a sell-sword, a person who, by definition, sold his trust for money. After the trial at the Eyrie and Tyrion was a free man, why did he continue to trust him? There was no reason to do so and many reasons not to. The same applies to Jon. When he went on his first mission he was told to kill Ygritte. All he knew about wildlings at the time was what he had been taught all his life and what they told him at the Watch: the Wildlings are savages who raid villages, kill innocent people and steal women and children. Why didn’t he kill Ygritte when he was told to? He had no reason to trust the wildlings and many reasons not to. Something similar happened to Daenerys in the show. Jorah (a proven traitor she had exiled herself) brought in a member of an enemy family she hates (Tyrion). She had absolutely no reason to trust either of them and many reasons not to. The most logical thing would have been for her to execute the both of them as soon as they showed up. However, what she did makes no sense: she trusts Tyrion blindly and hands him the government.

What Sansa, Ned and Catelyn did was not wrong. They trusted the right people. They just got very unlucky. On the other hand, Tyrion, Jon and Daenerys trusting enemies does not make sense. They got lucky but they could have been in deep trouble: Bronn could have betrayed Tyrion at any time, the wildlings could have ended up being the monsters Jon was taught they were, and Tyrion could have ended up being the Targaryen killer Daenerys feared. So, what is being criticized or cheered here is not the action, but the end result. And the end result had very little to do with the characters involved and a lot more to do with luck.

Sansa was infatuated with Joffrey when she was just a little girl, and people call her silly. Robb slept with a woman and risked everything for her and he is considered stupid; he lost the war because of it. Jon did the same thing twice but people consider it romantic. He risked the Watch and the Realm when fell for Ygrette and then he sold his crown and country to a foreign Queen. The same actions are judged differently depending on who did them.

As I said before, many characters make risky plans and take gambles. Some of them do work. Ned took a big risk hiding Jon in plain sight. Nothing happened and nobody found out. But if Robert had found out, Ned would have placed his whole family in danger. Robert would have come north and executed the whole Stark family for treason. Ned’s and Jon’s life would have been forfeit. And given how well Jon was treated (like a Lord and not a bastard), there’s no way the rest of the family could have claimed they didn’t know; Catelyn and the rest of the children (and probably Maester Luwin and the rest of the household) would have been declared guilty as well.

Jon trusting the wildlings was also a gamble. The wildings had been butchering people south of the Wall for generations. How did he know they would stop? He didn’t. He took a risk by letting them in. Nothing happened, but he risked dooming not just Castle Black but the whole realm by opening the doors to this threat.

Similarly, Tyrion wanted to find a mole in the Small Council and he used his niece for it. He sold his niece – the Royal Princess no less! - to three different families to see who the traitor was. Nothing happened and the plan succeeded, but it could have just as easily backfired. What if all three factions came forward claiming Myrcella’s hand as per Tyrion’s promise? He would have caused a war with Dorne, the Vale and the Greyjoys and put his family at risk. While defending the city from Stannis, Tyrion decided to use wildfire, an unstable and dangerous substance he really didn’t know much about. He got lucky and nothing happened, in fact, it helped him to win the battle. But he could have burned the whole city.

All these people took great risks that could have brought disastrous consequences, but because nothing happened (they got lucky) they are considered smart. Robb, on the other hand, is heavily criticized for sending Theon to his father going against all advice given to him. He took a risk and it backfired causing him to lose the war. But it could have worked just as easily. He could have added the Greyjoys to his army, attacked Casterly Rock by sea and won the war. He is criticized because it failed, not because it was wrong.

Catelyn’s plan to trade Jaime for the girls was just as risky. She had Tyrion’s word that he would negotiate. It could have gone either way. It was a gamble not too different from what other characters did. The fact that it didn’t work had little to do with her and a lot to do with external factors: Jaime and Brienne being apprehended, the Freys and the Bolton betraying them, Karstark killing the Lannister boys and Robb executing him leading to the rest of the Karstarks deserting, etc. If her plan had succeeded, she could have rescued both Arya and Sansa (since Tyrion had told her they had both girls) and helped to end the conflict. She would have done what Robb wanted to do but couldn’t given his role as King. She is criticized because it failed, not because it was wrong.

Negotiations is another similar issue. Betrothals, wards, exchange of hostages and promises of power are all bargaining chips characters use when negotiating. Depending on what you want, the price you have to pay. Tywin wanted the Starks gone, so he offered the Freys and Boltons what they wanted: power. This doesn’t always work. Stannis wanted an ally in the north so he offered Jon to be Lord of Winterfell, but he refused. Tyrion wanted Jaime so he was willing to negotiate with the Starks (and he was willing to offer Sansa in return). In the end he opted for a shady rescue mission which involved sneaking inside Riverrun and killing the guards. Oddly enough, he is never criticized for choosing a violent act that ended up failing.

Most alliances are made through betrothals. That is why Jon Arryn made Robert marry Cersei. That is why Ned and Catelyn married and Lysa was offered to Jon Arryn. That is why Robert wanted to marry Joffrey to Sansa. That is why Jon offered Alys Karstark to the Thenns. When Robb needed to cross the river at the Twins, Catelyn went in to negotiate. What she was asking Walder Frey to do was huge. She was asking him to support a rebellious faction in a treasonous uprising against a King who had not wronged him. And she was not negotiating on behalf of the Tullys, but for the Starks, a family from another Kingdom the Freys owed no allegiance to. So the offer had to be equally high: a betrothal to the King. She couldn’t offer any less if they wanted the negotiations to be fruitful. If he had played his cards right, Robb would have married a Frey girl like he was supposed to and with his army he could have won the war. Eventually, if they could ever find Arya, she would have married her betrothed like all the other high born boys and girls do. I could never understand why Catelyn gets so harshly criticized for the deal. She just offered the usual price so that they could free Ned. It’s not so outrageous, especially if you compare her deal with Tyrion selling the royal princess just to find a mole – a political manoeuvre which far from being criticized is celebrated by the fandom.

So it’s not the actions that fandom judges, but the end result. And more often than not, the end result does not really depend on the characters that made such decisions, but on other players and external factors. Going back to the example I gave at the beginning, not taking the umbrella with you would be the smart thing to do. But if you get soaked it was because of things that are beyond your control and you had no way of foreseeing.

Something that has always bugged me is how easily we forgive certain crimes. Jaime threw a kid though a window, the Hound ran a boy over with his horse and killed many innocent people that crossed his path, Daenerys burned people just for having a different opinion (and that’s even before she crossed over to Westeros), the wildlings raided and murdered entire villages. Somehow, all these people are considered romantic heroes. Yet Theon attacked Winterfell trying to kill as few people as he could and people relish in his suffering at Ramsay’s hands.

Another thing that has always confused me was the “Not for XX fans” tag. Usually that translates into “I’m going to gratuitously butcher said character and turn him/her into a vicious monster just so that my hero can look like a poor victim”. So we have stories in which either Rhaegar or Robert are heartless chauvinistic despots hurting poor Lyanna, Lyanna is a spoiled brat who doesn’t care about anyone but herself, Cat is a vicious harpy who would flay Jon alive just for fun, either Sansa or Daenerys are cunning manipulators who only crave power regardless of who they betray, same with Bran or Tyrion after season 8, etc. And none of these characters were such monsters. “Not for XX fans” is not just about butchering the characters in question, it’s about eliminating one of the best aspects of the saga: the characters. I have even read stories that had those tags and some characters were butchered to the point where they are barely recognizable, but what made them even worse was that the “good guys” of those stories would behave in a very similar fashion but instead of being vilified, they were glorified.

“Bad writing” has become a common excuse for the mistakes some characters made, especially in the latest seasons. It is no secret that after season 4 the writing went downhill. Most of the characters behaved in ways that made no sense and had little to do with the way they had behaved in the previous seasons.

We had Bronn and Jaime, two experienced warriors, attack an armed fortress in broad daylight with no back up and escape plan. We had the Blackfish, and veteran of many wars and battles who had escaped the Red Wedding choosing a glorified suicide over the chance to ally with Sansa and return to Riverrun with an army big enough to win it back from the Lannisters. We had a paranoid Daenerys trust the word of a confessed traitor who had tried to kill her and a Lannister she had no reason to believe anything good about. We had a cunning Baelish, the mastermind behind the whole mess and a master puppeteer reduced to a miserable mess duped by three teenagers who were not half as clever as he was. Varys suffered a similar fate. We had a smart pragmatic Jon turned into a walking blunder who caused more harm than good. We had a smart Tyrion who “drinks and knows things” but who for the last three seasons only did one of those things (and the actual ideas he had were terrible). We had a strong independent Brienne who became a lovesick fool. Etc …

Season 5 started this trend, which became a downward spiral climaxing in the mess that was season 8 and the series finale. All the characters were written in such a way that they were barely recognizable, most of them losing some of their most basic traits and even acting in ways that went against everything they had stood for before. The last season managed to turn all our heroes into villains: Bran, Sansa, Jon, Daenerys, Tyrion, Jaime …

I wanted to focus on the three main characters of the last season: Jon, Sansa and Daenerys. There is no doubt in my mind that the writing dealt them a bad card. For me all three became villains. Unlike previous seasons where characters caused problems because other factors affected their choices, this time their mistakes were caused by stupidity and arrogance and were completely avoidable: Sansa withholding vital information about the army of the Vale and then when the dust settled demanding the North became an independent Kingdom with her as Queen; Daenerys having this crazy “bend the knee or die” frenzy burning people whose only crime was to stand up against her and defend their lands, and then expecting everyone to just submit to her unconditionally; Jon becoming extremely arrogant, snubbing Sansa, betraying his people, and basically making ridiculous mistakes in all the fights he was involved in (against Ramsay, and against the Night King both beyond the Wall and in Winterfell).

The problem with these characters becomes even worse when romance comes into play. The show gave us a relationship between Jon and Daenerys: many people had been waiting for it since the beginning while many preferred Jon with Sansa. The romance aspect doesn’t really bother me. To be honest, I don’t see either shipping happening. Even after learning of Jon’s true origins, Jon and Sansa will still see each other as brother and sister and the whole incest thing will make it very awkward for them to be together. And given the way Jon and Daenerys behaved towards each other when they met, mutual hatred would have been a more logical end than falling in love. (And I never found any chemistry between Emilia and Kit – but I guess the writing had a lot to do with this). As I said, the fact that Jon and Sansa or Jon and Daenerys could have a romantic relationship is not really an issue for me. I have read good stories with both shippings. What I find irritating is how blind fans have become about this.

** **

Whatever your shipping of preference, one thing remains the same: Jon and her girl are the good guys while the other girl in question is a villain. And this is where the senseless bashing starts. If Jon is shipped with Daenerys, then Sansa is a manipulative bitch who will stop at nothing to get power. If he is shipped with Sansa, Daenerys is a crazy tyrant who will stop at nothing to get power. It’s very difficult to find a post season 8 story which does not depict a sweet Sansa who tries her best to help the North and save people from a deranged crazy blond bitch. Or a sweet caring misunderstood Daenerys who does everything she can to save the world and has to fight against a manipulative greedy Stark family.

It’s funny because they all miss the basic point: ALL the characters messed up big time just as much as they helped in the last couple of seasons. Both Sansa and Daenerys did their best to help, but they both acted in ways which should be harshly criticized. For all the good Jon did, he is in fact also responsible for many of the things that went wrong and his overall behaviour left a lot to be desired.

It has become extremely difficult to find a story set in season 7 onwards which would provide a balanced portrayal of these characters showing both the assets and the flaws of all three. The shipping battle has blinded the fans and clouded their judgement to the point that these characters have become mere caricatures.

Bad writing has been used as an excuse to absolve characters of the mess they became. And it’s true – they were very badly written. All of them. My issue is again with the selective use of this excuse. Fans will blame their favourite character’s bad actions on bad writing (_she/he would never do that_) but will not afford the rest of the characters the same courtesy.

So I wonder, were these characters’ actions atrocious because of the way they were written or only some of them? Can we chalk Daenerys’s massacre in King’s Landing up to bad writing but come down hard on Sansa for wanting to be Queen? Alternatively, can we forgive Sansa’s actions because the writers used her as a tool for girl-power but then bash Daenerys for what she became? And what about the other characters? Daenerys’s supporters blindly defend her actions saying it was all caused by Tyrion, Sansa and Jon. Tyrion ended up becoming one of the worst villains for me. Can’t we absolve Tyrion in the same way Daenerys’s fans excuse her? Many fans claim Jon’s mistakes in the latest seasons were due to bad writing and that the producers really messed up his character. Can’t we excuse Bran in the same way? Where do we draw the line between bad character and bad writing? When is a mistake due to a character’s failings or due to bad writing? Or, again, is “bad writing” only reserved for those we like?


	4. How your favourite character is affected.

** _ How your favourite character is affected.  _ **

** _ _ **

I have noticed a pattern in the fandom. The bashing a character receives is directly related to how badly a favourite character is affected by said character’s actions. It can’t be denied that Jon and Tyrion are fan favourites. Any action taken against them will be irrevocably denounced by most fans, even if said action is justified or not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

Cersei acted against Tyrion on many occasions, and she is hated for it. Yet, when Tyrion works against her, he is cheered and it is the victim (Cersei) who is still insulted. Cersei snubbed and mistreated Tyrion his whole life. But he was no different. He orchestrated a coup against her, getting rid of all her men and putting his own men in charge – not because they were better, but because they answered to him. He poisoned her and gave her diarrhoea so that she had to miss the meeting and he could be in charge. He used her only daughter and sold her for his own political gain. He actually issued threats against her. Yet, when she is the one acting against Tyrion, she is immediately vilified. Why is it that if it is Tyrion who acts against her he is applauded, but if she retaliates she is hated?

However, it is Jon who is the first character that comes to mind when referring to character bashing. Anybody who did something against Jon, or merely did not show great reverence for him is to be vilified. 

The most obvious case is Catelyn. For the society they lived in, she is completely justified in her feelings towards Jon, resenting the fact that “the bastard” was given all the benefits of being a Lord and fearing he might one day rise up and usurp her children’s rights (a very real risk in that society). And yet, she never once acted against Jon. Even by today’s standards, all she can be accused of is of being “cold”. We only know of how she felt because we read her thoughts in her PoV chapters in the books, but you would be hard pressed to find any evidence of any kind of abuse or mistreatment on her part. An outsider coming to Wintefell would never guess how deep her feelings went. Ned dumped this on her and she accepted it meekly. She only broached the subject once with Ned in private when she asked who Jon’s mother was. After Ned yelled at her she never brought the subject up again – she just suffered in silence. The fact is that for that society, Catelyn treated Jon a lot better than he deserved, she was far more civil and decent to him than she should have been. Jon was never treated like a bastard, not by her and not by anyone else. Jon was an integral part of the Stark family, sharing absolutely everything with his siblings, and Catelyn never stood in his way nor did she share her ill thoughts about him with anyone. She was the best thing that could have happened to Jon and Ned and no other woman would have been so tolerant, accepting and forgiving. In fact, Jon has absolutely nothing to complain about his life at Winterfell. It was a future that he did not have, and that was Ned’s responsibility, not Catelyn’s. There is not a sentence in the books that would suggest he was ever abused by her in any way. The only time she was ever unkind to Jon was when he went to say goodbye to Bran. “It should have been you” is a terrible thing to say. But it is just as terrible as having your son slowly dying in front of you as you sit helplessly by. For all the sympathy Jon gets in that scene, the grieving mother gets none – which says a lot about the fandom in my view. Unfortunately, not loving Jon unconditionally is something this fandom will never forgive and is enough to make people hate her. Her every mistake is judged a lot harsher than mistakes made by other characters, exaggerated or twisted to make her look bad. Furthermore, she gets no credit for all her good deeds and sound decisions (which are a lot). But it is in fanfiction where her character really takes a life of its own, where she is turned into a cartoonish evil step mother doing things that could not be further removed from the kind of person she was. Some of these are downright laughable, and should be taken just as seriously as a story featuring Baelish running an orphanage or Ned becoming a tyrannical Warden of the North raping the women who fail to pay taxes. 

Alliser Thorne is another character who treated Jon according to what he was and gets slammed for it. He was in charge of training the new recruits and he had to treat all the recruits in the same way. But Jon’s attitude when he first arrived at Castle Black feeling superior to everyone else and expecting a better treatment just for being the son of a Lord and having been raised and trained in a castle was something Thorne could not allow. Jon disregarded authority believing he knew better. This was the ultimate army that would save humanity from doom; Thorne couldn’t afford to let arrogant brats disrupt the training. Thorne did not single Jon out spitefully, he just refused to grant him special treatment unless he had earned it. Once again, refusing to grant Jon special favours is enough to warrant the hatred of the fandom. It gets even worse when later on Jon broke just about every oath and received no punishment for it, when any other brother doing the same would have been harshly reprimanded. After this, when they held elections for the position of Lord Commander, Thorne was one of the legitimate contenders: he had experience, knowledge and expertise. Yet, Sam swayed the opinions to get Jon elected, snubbing Thorne, who would have had more merit to be Lord Commander. It’s interesting to see that Sam’s manoeuvre here is something the likes of which Tywin or Baelish would have been proud of. Had they done it against the Starks, people would be up in arms calling for their heads. Here Sam did it to help Jon so Sam is revered as a hero. Thorne is shown as a jerk for resenting the fact that he was snubbed, but, yet again, his feelings were justified. Everything Jon did as Lord Commander went against what the Watch had stood for for thousands of years, and that’s why he was killed. As readers, we have the benefit of being omnipresent, but the Brothers of the Watch did not. It was Jon’s responsibility to let them know and show them that he was right. But he never did. In the eyes of the Brothers, Jon was putting the Watch and the realm at risk. He was a threat that had to be dealt with. For them, what they did was a revolution to depose a corrupt leader who was dooming the realm for his own personal whims. Not too different from revolts and uprisings other characters we cheer for have done. Thorne and the Brothers just happened to rebel against Jon, which is a big sin in this fandom.

While Ollie was friends with Jon everybody loved him. Then in battle he killed Ygritte and people started criticizing him. Ygritte was part of the group who had killed his family and was now attacking his new home and new friends. For him she was an enemy, why shouldn’t he kill her? Besides, Jon was not supposed to be friends with Ygritte. Granted, we know the wildlings were not the monsters they were said to be, but Ollie doesn’t know this. Jon never bothered to explain, he just ordered him to open the doors and trust the very same people who had ruined his life. It is completely understandable that he would rebel against Jon. So once again, a person who was justified not to trust Jon and to act against him is harshly criticized.

When Jon was crowned King, there was a possibility that Sansa might claim her rights and be crowned instead of Jon. Her claim was just as valid, Sansa brought the army that won the battle and she was Ned’s and Robb’s trueborn heir. All Jon had in his favour was that he was a man while Sansa was a girl. The rivalry that ensued afterwards was very silly. Jon kept Sansa in the dark, never told her any of his decisions and never asked for her input. In return, Sansa contradicted him and questioned him in public undermining his authority. Many fans felt that, because she had a possibility to challenge Jon’s newly acquired title, that she was ambitious and greedy – even though she never did challenge him and accepted his rule. In fact, she did the complete opposite: she stood by him and covered for him. But just having the possibility to challenge Jon was enough to make some people hate her. Of course it became worse in season 8 when she openly defied him and then told Tyrion the truth about Jon breaking his trust. Did she do it for the good of the people because she realized Daenerys was not a good ruler, or did she do it to undermine Jon and Dany? People’s opinions vary on this. But, yet again, working against Jon (or not working with him) will warrant the hatred of a great proportion of the fandom. 

Daenerys… Let’s refer to her before the Mad Queen debacle of the last episode. Many people were rooting for Jon to be King given his Targaryen origins (for me being a Targaryen does not give either of them a right to absolutely anything because the Targaryens lost the crown). But she was so driven to become Queen and so adamant that it was her divine right that she became Jon’s perceived enemy in the eyes of some people in the fandom. So, just like with Sansa, we had an array of fanficton stories showing her as ambitious and greedy trying to take what rightfully belonged to Jon. Before she became the Mad Queen and killed everyone, she was just someone who could compete with Jon, but this was enough to show her in a bad light for many fans.

So, summing up, all these characters are ok until they can be seen as rivals to Jon. Even if they never act against him, the mere fact that they do not give him special treatment is enough to warrant people’s hatred for them. And then all their actions are blown way out of proportion and they are considered guilty of things they have not even done (and would never do). Seeing people relish in these characters’ suffering, enjoying their deaths or asking for them to have a gruesome death in fanfiction just because they are not Jon’s friends really scares me. What kind of people would want someone to suffer just because they didn’t bow unconditionally to your best friend?

Similarly, anybody who acts in favour of Jon is cheered by the fans, even if their actions make no sense. There was no reason for Jon to be given the special treatment he received at the Wall, but Lord Commander Mormont and the brothers that bent the rules in favour of Jon are forgiven. If Sam’s shady actions had been to get Thorne elected instead, he would be hated not celebrated. The wildlings had no reason to trust Jon – a crow. But because they did, they became fan favourites and all their heinous crimes were forgiven: the fact that they had killed innocent farmers and peasants became irrelevant. After the mutiny Jon’s body should have been burned, not because Jon was bad, but because it was dangerous. By not burning his body they risked having a wight among them. Instead of commenting on the brothers’ mistake, we celebrate their loyalty. Davos had no business resurrecting Jon whom he knew nothing about. He had even less of a reason to call on Melisandre, the person he feared the most in the whole world. But because he did, he became a fan favourite. He then saw Jon fail in battle after battle (against Ramsay, the wild goose chase beyond the Wall, the battle against the Night King), he saw Jon support what looked like a tyrant (he didn’t really know Daenerys), he saw Jon go behind everybody’s back and betray his people for a new queen, and he still supported him blindly. Had it not been Jon he so stoically stood by, he would be considered stupid.

Mind you, I do not hate Jon by any means, and this is not a rant against Jon – on the contrary, it is against the people who have turned Jon into a caricature. I love Jon, just as I love most characters. He was just as good (and just as bad) as Catelyn, Thorne, Ollie, Sansa, Daenerys, etc. It is precisely because of this that I do not think he deserves the special treatment many in the fandom think he deserves – that only belittles his character. It is almost as if fans believed that if he is not granted all these benefits by force he would never earn them on his own, which is not true. Similarly, giving him an invented enemy just so that he can look like a martyr leads me to believe fans do not consider him interesting enough in his own, that he needs a cruel nemesis in order not to be dull, which again, is not true.

This senseless bashing of characters just because they happened not to be best friends with a favourite is extremely childish and reminds me of when I went to school: “If you don’t like my friend, then I don’t like you”. We ignore the fact that maybe you don’t like my friend because she stole your lunch or did not invite you to her birthday party.


	5. Final Conclusions

** _ Final conclusions.  _ **

What I have learned is that it is not the actions that this fandom judges, but who did them, or whether their favourite character can gain something or not. I’m not saying some characters and their actions are right and the others are wrong. On the contrary. I love the saga and the characters for what they are: morally grey people (some greyer than others) who would, for the most part, try to do their best for everyone. What one character considers “fair” or “the best” may not agree with what another character believes, but that doesn’t always mean one is wrong and the other one is right. When you look at what the characters say or do from their point of view and knowing only what they know, most of their actions make complete sense and we would have probably done the same had we been in their shoes. But most people refuse to do this and only see things from a very biased perspective. It’s the double standard and hypocrisy that I’m trying to point out. And that is precisely why I can’t take most of the senseless character bashing and childish hero-worshipping that takes place in this fandom very seriously.

Thank you. 


End file.
